The briefly worded Amendment 17 would have added to the bill of
rights in the Colorado Constitution the inalienable right of parents
"to direct and control the upbringing, education, values, and
discipline of their children."

Although polls leading up to the Nov. 5 election showed that voters
favored the proposed Parental Rights Amendment, it was rejected by 57
percent of Colorado voters.

Opponents, including an array of civic and education groups, argued
that the amendment would stifle educators, put workers in child health
and welfare on the defensive, and clog courts with lawsuits against
state agencies.

Fofi Mendez, who managed the opposition coalition, said the
amendment, backed largely by conservative and religious groups, was not
the answer to strengthening families in the state. She hailed the
proposal's defeat as "a vote where reasonable people and common sense
prevailed."

Backers said Amendment 17 would limit the authority of government
and return power to parents.

Jeffrey Bell, whose Arlington, Va.-based parent-rights organization,
Of the People, sponsored the Colorado measure, blamed its defeat on a
misinterpretation. He argued that opponents wrongly portrayed the word
"discipline" as physical abuse.

Bipartisan Opposition

The Protect Our Children Coalition, the bipartisan opposition
managed by Ms. Mendez, debated the measure across the state,
maintaining that it would allow an outspoken minority of parents to
challenge virtually any government service or agency affecting their
children, including public schools and school boards, libraries, and
health-care and child-protection services.

Ms. Mendez said the coalition, which included Democratic Gov. Roy
Romer as well as associations of teachers, churches, pediatricians,
sheriffs, district attorneys, and others, was instrumental in
convincing voters that the seemingly reasonable measure was not so
simple.

"Of the People misjudged the effectiveness of our campaign and the
intelligence of Colorado voters," Ms. Mendez said. "At first blush, it
sounded like motherhood and apple pie. But once [voters] looked beneath
the pretty packaging and saw the effects, they said no."

One of the primary targets of the amendment was the school system.
School officials feared the measure would wreak havoc on the work of
teachers, stunt curricula, and force schools to halt services such as
confidential drug and birth-control counseling for students.

"It would have caused ideological battle fronts in schools," said
Deborah Fallin, a spokeswoman for the Colorado Association of School
Boards, "with individual parents pushing for their child's individual
needs."

She also maintained that the language of the measure--by ensuring
parents' "control" of their children's education--would ultimately have
moved education in the state toward a voucher system.

The Coalition for Parental Responsibility, the Colorado group
backing the amendment, denied that vouchers were part of the intent of
the measure.

Outside Support

Backers said the measure was intended to affirm the fundamental
rights of parents--rights that they said have been eroded by the
courts, various government agencies, and other institutions and groups
dealing with children, including state teachers' unions.

The Colorado sponsors said last week that they will push some
version of the parental-rights measure in the legislature, while Of the
People mounts a campaign to put the issue back on the ballot in
1998.

Mr. Bell said that given the swell of support that the amendment had
through most of the campaign, the defeat was a major blow.

"I've learned a lot of lessons in this defeat," Mr. Bell said. "We
needed more support from state officers--the governor and
senators."

Perhaps the most prominent champion of the measure was Republican
presidential candidate Bob Dole. While stumping in Colorado, Mr. Dole
urged voters to "pass Amendment 17 and become the first state to
enshrine parental rights in its constitution." No prominent state
officials supported the measure, however.

The amendment was sponsored largely by out-of-state interests--Mr.
Bell's group provided most of the $463,000 that the pro-amendment
coalition raised--prompting charges from many Coloradans that the state
was being used as a testing ground for questionable legislation.

The initiative was one of the most closely watched ballot issues
nationally and the most divisive in the state since 1992, observers
said. That year, voters narrowly approved an amendment prohibiting
anti-discrimination legislation covering homosexuals, a measure that
has since been declared unconstitutional.

If the parental-rights amendment had passed in Colorado, supporters
were prepared to launch similar proposals in more than 20
states.

Bonds for N.C.

In other state ballot action elsewhere last week, voters in North
Carolina overwhelmingly passed $1.8 billion statewide bond issue for
school construction--the largest school bond issue in the state's
history.

The measure will pay for construction, renovation, and other
school-related building projects. Sponsors say the bonds will alleviate
more than 30 percent of the state's school facilities needs. Funds will
be distributed on the basis of a district's wealth, growth, and average
daily attendance.

In Arkansas, meanwhile, voters approved a constitutional amendment
drafted to reduce gaps in per-pupil spending across the state. The
amendment allows the state to require a minimum local property-tax
rate. Lawmakers who supported the measure saw the amendment as the
final step in cementing a new school finance law.

An Arkansas judge ruled in November 1994 that the state's finance
system allowed for unconstitutional inequities in schooling. The judge
gave lawmakers two years to fix the problem. The legislature reduced
many of the gaps in its 1995 session with a new equalization formula
that encouraged districts to raise more funds locally.

Nebraska voters last week handed a resounding defeat to two
constitutional amendments on school finance supported by the state's
largest teachers' union. One would have created new statewide caps on
property taxes. The other amendment, supporters said, would have
ensured that the legislature made up for lost property taxes by making
education the "paramount duty" of state.

But several other education groups opposed both measures, which they
feared were not strong enough to provide the necessary funding from the
state.

Idaho Tax-Limit Loses

In Idaho, voters defeated Proposition 1, which would have limited
property taxes in the state to 1 percent of assessed value.

A coalition of businesses, school officials, and prominent Idaho
residents came out against the tax-limitation measure, which was on the
ballot for the third time since 1978. Critics said it would have dried
up needed funding for schools and other services.

In Oregon, voters rejected Measure 42, which would have required
annual testing of all students' verbal and math skills in grades
4-12.

Opponents of the measure had said the testing requirement--brought
to the voters by a doctor from Salem--would have been costly and
redundant because the state's public schools already assess students in
the 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 10th grades.

Finally, the vote on Measure 47, Oregon's so-called cut-and-cap
initiative to limit property taxes, was still too close to call late
last week. The measure would limit property-tax increases to no more
than 3 percent each year.

Opponents said that the cut-and-cap measure would punish schools and
other government services--such as parks, police, and libraries--in a
state already pinched by previous tax-limiting measures. However, polls
showed that Oregonians are increasingly concerned that rising property
assessments are taking too big a bite out of their stagnant
incomes.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.